BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2011-2012 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: AB 376 HEARING DATE: June 14, 2011
AUTHOR: Fong URGENCY: No
VERSION: May 19, 2011 CONSULTANT: Marie Liu
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Shark fins.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Section 7704 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits the sale,
purchase, commercial delivery, or possession on a commercial
vessel of any shark fin that has been removed from the carcass.
Fins of the thresher shark may be removed and possessed on a
commercial fishing vessel so long as the fins are unaltered and
the corresponding carcass is in possession.
Several other sections of the Fish and Game Code put
restrictions on the commercial taking of shark including a
prohibition of the taking of any white shark (§8599) and a
prohibition on taking of shark and swordfish with a drift gill
net without an appropriate permit (§8561). Furthermore, Fish and
Game regulations establish recreational take restrictions for a
number of specific shark species including Leopard, soupfin,
mako, thresher, and blue shark.
Federal law regulates the shark fishery under the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This
act has been amended, including by the Shark Conservation Act of
2010, to prohibit the landing of sharks without their fins
attached. Federal law also prohibits shark finning. Shark
finning, as described by the National Marine Fisheries Service
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA
Fisheries) in its 2009 annual Shark Finning Report to Congress,
is the "practice of taking a shark, removing a fin or fins
(whether or not including the tail), and returning the remainder
of the shark to the sea. Because the meat of the shark is
usually of low value, the finless sharks are thrown back into
the sea and subsequently die." Since sharks need to continuously
swim to breath, the finned shark either suffocates to death or
1
is preyed upon.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would prohibit the possession, sale, offer for sale,
trade, or distribution of a shark fin. Specifically, this bill
would:
Define "shark fin" as the detached tail or fin of an
elasmobranch (shark) that may be raw, dried, or otherwise
processed.
Exempts the possession of shark fins for scientific or
educational purposes by a person with a valid permit issued
by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG).
Exempts the possession of shark fins by a person who
holds commercial or recreational permit or license to take
or land sharks.
Until January 1, 2013, allow a restaurant to possess,
sell, trade, or distribute shark fin that is prepared for
consumption and was possessed by that restaurant as of
January 1, 2012.
Includes findings and declarations regarding the
ecological importance of sharks, the worldwide decline in
shark populations, sharks' susceptibility to decline, the
loss of tens of millions of sharks to shark finning, the
role of the shark fin market driving shark population
declines, and the high mercury content of shark fin which
is dangerous to consumers' health.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "Sharks are overfished and exploited
for their fins at alarming rates that are unnecessary for human
consumption and unsustainable for the overall health of our
seas. Sharks are top predators that are critical to the ocean
ecosystem, without them, the health of the world's oceans marine
life will decline. Scientists have found that shark populations
have decreased dramatically in recent years, with some species
at risk of extinction."
A coalition of primarily environmental organizations including
the Monterey Bay Aquarium, Defenders of Wildlife, and the United
Angles of Southern California, state in support of the bill,
"Sharks are in serious trouble as a result of the international
shark fin trade, with some populations declined by 99%. The
demand for high-value shark fin (as opposed to other low-value
shark products) continues to drive the decimation of sharks.
Sharks are critical apex predators that keep our ecosystems
working. Banning the shark fin trade is the only way to save
sharks- fin trade bans just like AB 376 have been enacted or are
2
poised to be enacted in other US states and in countries around
the world. Our regulations cannot deter actors in international
waters, but ending the fin trade here can."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
The Asian Food Trade Association opposes the bill because they
believe that if the shark fin is to be banned, then shark meat
and all shark related commercial products should also be banned.
Otherwise, the bill unfairly targets the Chinese and Asian
eating habits.
Much of the opposition to this bill is from individuals,
restaurant and business owners, and family associations. While
these individuals have not collaborated officially as a single
group, several individuals collectively met with legislative
offices, including this committee's staff. The group argues
that:
Sharks as a whole are not endangered as evidenced by the
lack of shark species classified as threatened or
endangered in the US and the listing of only 3 shark
species by the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
Finning is no longer a widespread practice and that
sharks are caught by all nations and races for their meat.
The shark fin is a valuable by-product of fishing for
shark meat.
The passage of this bill will result in thousands of
jobs lost and the loss of tax revenue from the sale of
shark fin.
Federal and international finning laws are effective.
Banning shark fin is discriminating against a single
culture because this would be the only state ban of a food
product, the bill only bans the fin and not other shark
products, and the bill aims to protect sharks when there
are more threatened fish species including bluefin tuna and
wild salmon.
COMMENTS
Sharks are important to marine ecosystems. Sharks are generally
top predators, thus their populations influence their prey's
distribution which causes a "domino effect" through the whole
food web. For example, sharks often suppress the number of
smaller predators that consume smaller fish and shellfish,
including commercially important species. Thus, in the northwest
Atlantic, large shark declines have corresponded with a decrease
in commerciallyvaluable bay scallops. Because sharks have very
large migratory ranges, the significant loss of sharks is
3
predicted to result in complex changes to the ocean ecosystem.
Growing concern over shark populations. NOAA Fisheries, in its
2009 annual Shark Finning Report to Congress, states, "Many
shark species are characterized by relatively late maturity,
slow growth, and low reproductive rates, which can make them
particularly vulnerable to overexploitation. Concern has grown
about the status of shark stocks and the sustainability of their
exploitation in world fisheries, as demand for some shark
species and shark products (i.e., fins) has increased." Numerous
scientific studies have noted significant population declines
for specific shark populations and geographic areas. For
example, two highly cited studies found that shark species in
the northwest Atlantic are estimated to have declined 40-89%
since the late 1980s, and oceanic whitetip and silky sharks in
the Gulf of Mexico have declined by over 99% and 90%
respectively.
Baum, J.K., R.A. Myers, D.G. Kehler, B.Worm, S.J. Harley, and
P.A. Doherty. (2003). Collapse and conservation of shark
populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science. 17 January 2003,
299: 389-392.
Baum, J.K. and R.A. Myers. (2004). Shifting baselines and the
decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecology
Letters. 7: 135-145.
More generally, the International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) has finished a 10-year effort to evaluate all
chondrichthyan fishes (sharks and their relatives) that have
been described in scientific literature before the end of 2007.
The IUCN found that of the 881 species of chondrichthyans
globally, nearly a third are at higher levels of concern
("critically endangered," "endangered," and "vulnerable"). Open
ocean sharks are particularly vulnerable with 58% of the species
being "threatened" with extinction. There is however also
considerable uncertainty because there is insufficient
population data for many chondrichthyan species.
The committee may wish to consider whether there is substantial
scientific information suggesting that many shark species are
threatened and facing significant population declines.
Fishing, particularly fishing driven by the demand for shark
fins, plays a predominate role in causing population declines.
NOAA Fisheries has concluded that since the mid-1980s, a number
of shark populations in the United States have declined,
primarily due to overfishing. The IUCN also has concluded that
4
sharks are primarily threatened by fishing. Of the fishing
threat, more than half of the threat is a result of by-catch and
about a third of the threat is a result of directed commercial
fishing of sharks.
Since shark fins account for 40% of the value in the reported
shark trade but comprise only 7% of the volume, the IUCN states
that, "it has become increasingly clear that the international
demand for shark fins is the driving force behind most shark
fisheries today." The IUCN further states, "Historically most
sharks- especially those taken in high-seas fisheries- were
discarded because of their low value and difficulties associated
with storing their meat on board. The situation began to change
in the 1980s when the demand for shark fin soup in Asian
cultures began to grow. Shark fins are one of the world's most
expensive fishery products, and of much higher value than shark
meat."
Can sufficient global shark protections be achieved through US
and state fishing laws? A 2006 study that examined shark biomass
in the shark fin trade concluded that there is significant
underreporting of shark fin harvest, as the shark fin biomass in
the fin trade was three to four times higher than the reported
shark catch figures. This high level of underreporting and the
fact that there is a large variance in other countries' shark
fishing laws and enforcement, indicates that there are
substantial gaps globally for shark protection. The committee
may wish to consider
whether sufficient protection of shark populations can be
achieved without changes in the international shark market,
regardless of the severity of US and state fishing laws.
Trade bans, on the other hand, can have impacts on the
international shark trade that cannot be achieved with domestic
fishing regulations. The Legislature has in the past has
attempted to affect international trade of other animals,
including a ban on the sale and possession of parts from zebras,
cheetahs, tigers, elephants, and leopards (Penal Code §650o).
Is it appropriate or fair to ban one part of the shark rather
than the entire shark? According to the author, the intent of
this measure is to address the overfishing of sharks. Because
the fin market is such a significant driver in the shark trade,
a ban on shark fin can sufficiently reduce the shark market. The
author states, "The minimal or nonexistent market for other
low-value shark parts and shark meat (which reports state is
exported from the United States for only $1 per pound), does not
5
put shark populations at risk of collapse. Conversely, the high
value of fins (which can fetch $600 or more a pound)
incentivizes overfishing and the practice of finning. The
situation is very much like the ivory trade ban - elephants were
primarily targeted for high-priced ivory, though meat, hides and
other products find limited market. Opponents, however, argue
that banning only the fin disproportionately impacts one
cultural group, as shark fin soup is almost the sole use for
shark fin.
Similar efforts. Recently, Washington, Hawaii, Guam, and the
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands enacted legislation to
eliminate the shark fin trade within their territorial
boundaries. The Oregon Legislature just passed legislation this
month that would establish a shark fin ban. Also, a member of
China's parliament has introduced a measure this year that would
ban shark fin in China.
SUPPORT
Asian Pacific American Ocean Harmony Alliance (Sponsor)
Monterey Bay Aquarium (Sponsor)
7th Generation Advisors
Action for Animals
Animal Place
Aquarium of the Bay
Asian Americans for Community Involvement
Asian and Pacific Islanders California Action Network
Betty Yee, Member, State Board of Equalization
Born Free USA
Cal Coast
California Academy of Science
California Association of Zoos and Aquariums
California Coastal Commission
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California League of Conservation Voters
California Travel Association
COARE
Coastside Fishing Club
County of Santa Cruz Board of Supervisor
Defenders of Wildlife
Environment California
Environmental Defense Fund
Food Empowerment Project
Green Chamber of Commerce
Heal the Bay
Jim Toomey - Sherman's Lagoon
Natural Resources Defense Council
6
Ocean Conservancy
Oceana
Orange County Baykeepers
Orange County Coastkeeper
Pacific Environment
PawPAC
Planning and Conservation League
Reef Check
San Francisco Baykeeper
SeaStewards
Shark Savers
Sierra Club California
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Los Angeles
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Santa Cruz
The Bay Institute
The Body Glove
The Humane Society of the United States
The Nature Conservancy
The Sportfishing Conservancy
United Anglers
United Anglers of Southern California
WildAid
Wildcoast
Numerous individuals
OPPOSITION
Asian Food Trade Association
Asian Nutrition and Health Association
Chung Chou City, Inc.
National Chinese Welfare Council of Los Angeles County
Oriental Food Association
Stockton Seafood Center, Inc.
Numerous individuals (including business owners, family
associations)
7